Jack wrote in an earlier thread, "The bottom line is NOBODY KNOWS". This--NOBODY KNOWS--statement I would like to vehemently question.

Take any business. Its sole function is making a Profit. Now lets eavesdrop on a little imaginary meeting that is occuring that was called by the programmers to inform the CEO and PRES. That they have a little Computer Problem:

Programmers: "Boss we need about $50,000,000.00 to fix a computer problem!

Boss: What computer problem?

Programmer: Well, we think that when the date hits 1/1/2000 all of the comptuers MAY crash!

Boss: "you want $50,000,000.00 on a problem that MAY occur. Forget it, I need 100% uniquivocal,proof and evidence.

Programmer: OK, here's the proof, we ran the computers ahead and they all crashed".

Boss: Who do I make the check out to? And when will the work be completed?

THE BOTTOM LINE IS SOMEBODY KNOWS!!!! Does anyone else agree with the incorrect assumption that NOBODY KNOWS?

-- David Butts (dciinc@aol.com), June 30, 1999

Answers

Somebody could hit the bullseye today: my bet is the C4I group has the best grip on what's actually going to happen.

I mean, heck, the people here are super bright, but there are definitely super-brighter people out there, and the .gov recruits them.....

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), June 30, 1999.

"...my bet is the C4I group has the best grip on what's actually going to happen."

lisa, what is the C41 group? I'm going to guess they don't have a website. ;->

-- thank (you@in.advance), June 30, 1999.

Diane, did you want to answer the C4I question? It would take me six weeks to whip up all the links......

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), June 30, 1999.

But David,

Koskinen knows... "nobody knows"... and he MUST be right. He's our Y2K Czar.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 30, 1999.

Repost...

c4i saga...

Thread #1...

Why Paul Milne is a Polly

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000w5S

Thread #2...

Weak Link

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000wIA

Thread #3...

WHY I THINK c4i IS A DOOMER TROLL

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000wKw

Thread #4...

c4i, how might you wish us best respond to your disclosures?

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000wOI

Now... the real c4i posted on the first thread and came in on a verified dot mil ISP. Then on the second thread a fake c4i starts posting... NOT coming from a dot mil ISP. On the the forth thread the real c4i posts once to FM coming back in on that verified dot mil ISP.

Several of us received e-mail from said c4i. The publisher they requested we take the story to, responded that they ONLY follow their own verifiable leads and sources. So... there it sits.

Read it... and ALL the responses... and figure it out yourself.

To paraphrase one Moderator... they sure came down the fire poles fast on this one!

Go figure.

(Reread the very first post about Washington D.C. on Thread #1 and put it in context with this weeks Washinton Post articles).

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 30, 1999.

Nobody knows, simply means that the true and total extent of the y2k ramifications is unknowable. Unless you are ready to name the "individual" that possesses this knowledge PLEASE BE QUIET.

Luv ya c

-- corrine l (corrine@iwaynet.net), June 30, 1999.

David:

Binary thinking strikes again. This isn't a question of whether we know or don't know, it's a question of the effective limits of our knowledge.

The salient questions might be: Have we properly identified which systems are critical? Did any errors slip through our remediation and testing process? If they did, how much trouble will they cause? If slipped schedules reduce our testing coverage, what impacts will result? What problems might our suppliers or customers experience, and how might this affect us? How quickly can we address whatever problems may arise? Are we preparing for the most likely contingencies? What level of preparation will prove most cost- effective? Will 'compliant' patches and upgrades be delivered in time to test them properly? How much should we budget for repairs that might be required later?

And the answer to all of this is, nobody knows. There are far too many variables and far too little hard information. So we all do what we think is best and we all hope it's sufficient.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 30, 1999.

Davey,

You're long winded big-boy. See my posting above.

A peck on the cheek

.

-- corrine l (corrine@iwaynet.net), June 30, 1999.

Nobody knows. It's because never before in history have we had computers that are so intertwined in our society a significant percetage of which may take a hit at the same time. It's because our society has reached a level of complexity and interdependancy and no one can envision how it all ties in as a single system. And mostly, nobody knows because PR rep's put the best face on things, Politicans lie habitually (under oath even. why not?) and some pollys and doomers have made what should be a discussion some kind of contest in which they waste bandwith rooting for their side instead of listening. The truth is out there. You just aren't able to see it. Because when you read something that is true, it's lost in all the noise.

So, in conclusion, nobody knows.

Prepare for the worst. Hope for the best. Learn to listen respectfuly, even if you don't like what you hear. And keep your...

-- eyes_open (best@wishes.com), June 30, 1999.

"Nobody knows, simply means that the true and total extent of the y2k ramifications is unknowable. Unless you are ready to name the "individual" that possesses this knowledge PLEASE BE QUIET. Luv ya c"

Thanks C! Glad that some understood without my spelling it out, and you explained succinctly and so well! Of course there are people who "know" specific limited things, but how it will all come out in the wash? Analyze, assess, theorize and respond. That's as far as I go... don't trust psychics.

-- Mumsie (Lotsakids@home.com), June 30, 1999.

CALLING ALL INTELLIGENT PEOPLE...

I happen to be self-employed, and I assure you that if someone in my company told me that we needed to spend thousands (maybe millions) of dollars or else lose that much or worse, go out of business, I would expect that person to have SUBSTANTIAL data to show why it should be done. Follow the money, all intelligent people!

Corrine, you have simply missed the point with your very rude statements to David. He is simply expressing his total frustration at the PR statements from businesses to gov't officials expressing "Nobody knows".

Y2K is a "mechanical" problem...human intellect created it...therefore human intellect knows everything about it. Engineers build bridges...they know about its weaknesses. Someone "created" computer code...they know about its weaknesses. Let's take the Challenger accident for example. The P.E. KNEW the o-ring could blow, but no one was told this outside of NASA & M.T. The astronauts (sheeple) had FAITH that the NASA (gov't) would never put them in harms way...NEVER!

Yet, still, there is no consensus on will they or won't they crash AMONG programmers. We know why the gov't won't give us straight answers.

-- I'm (with@titude.now), June 30, 1999.

I'm (with@titude.now),

From my thirty years' experience as a professional programmer and analyst, including having been on both sides (perpetuation and elimination) of Y2k problems, it seems to me that your opinions may be based on a misunderstanding of how the young profession of computer programming has been done for its few decades of existence.

>Y2K is a "mechanical" problem...

While I have frequently drawn analogies between computers and automabiles for the sake of illustration of various principles, I wish to dispute this view. Y2k is just as much a psychological problem as it is a "mechanical" one. The common habit of writing two-digit year number abbreviations was an important chapter in the origins of the Y2k problem.

>human intellect created it...therefore human intellect knows everything about it.

Fallacy. For instance, programmers who use existing subroutines from a software library do not necessarily know all the properties of those subroutines. Those properties are supposed to be documented, but all too often the authors overlook the significance of some aspect of the subroutine that turns out to be important in some later context. (And I'm not even addressing the sad state of documentation.)

>Engineers build bridges...they know about its weaknesses. Someone "created" computer code...they know about its weaknesses.

This analogy is only partially correct. (Yes, that's true of almost any analogy, but the failure of parallelism is particularly important in the context of the conclusion you wish to support with this one.) The field of bridge engineering has been practiced for thousands of years, during which certain principles have become well established. The field of software engineering has been practiced for only a few decades, and its principles are not nearly as clearly established as the principles of bridge engineering.

Furthermore, much of the Y2k-noncompliant software was created without application of software engineering principles in the first place, so even those few principles don't apply to that portion.

>Let's take the Challenger accident for example. The P.E. KNEW the o-ring could blow, but no one was told this outside of NASA & M.T. The astronauts (sheeple) had FAITH that the NASA (gov't) would never put them in harms way...NEVER!

... and some of this can be and has been applied to analogies with the Y2k problem, but some of this can't and shouldn't have.

>Yet, still, there is no consensus on will they or won't they crash AMONG programmers.

For many good reasons. E.g., not all software was created equally skillfully or soundly. E.g., the differences between various software are greater than the differences between various bridges. E.g., the rapid changes in computer programming mean that many programmers currently have no sound understanding of the inner workings of software created only a few decades ago.

>We know why the gov't won't give us straight answers.

Oh? And they are ... ?

Are you suggesting a parallel to why programmers don't give "straight answers" about Y2k? Or what's the connection of this last sentence of yours to what precedes it?

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), June 30, 1999.

I think it's a question of _micro_ vs. _macro_ thinking. In the confines of a micro-environment (e.g. a business), then of course you can "know" about the outcomes because the environment can be understood, tested and explained (we rolled the computers forward and they crashed). In a macro-environment (e.g. the world), there is no way for any single person or entity to know what will happen because it's all interconnected - for someone to "know," that would imply that they understood and could control or test _everything_ in the whole world. It ain't gonna happen...

-- Jim (x@x.x), July 01, 1999.

Big money knows thats why they are parting with mega-bucks in a race against corporate death. Y2k is the big one,no Ifs about it. The militaries of the world know it. Watch closely and listen. watch their actions they speak louder than words. Where is the secretary of state,jcs and the heads of the treasury and the head of the fed reserve this week end. Secret big chesse meeting on y2k going on to dicuss options. I would bet that another serious y2k deadline was missed and has got the big guys very worried.

-- y2k aware mike (y2k aware mike @ conservation .com), July 01, 1999.

Lisa -- As one of the super-super brightest people, I feel very insulted. 'Course, come to think of it, maybe I am one of the C4i group, right? Stranger things have happened ...

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), July 01, 1999.

mike you really are aware. you picked a good handle. take notes at the big meeting.

hope they have donuts. kisses

-- corrine l (corrine@iwaynet.net), July 02, 1999.